VARGHESE Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order in I. A. 5692 of 1995 in O.S. 1559 of 1992 of the Sub Court, Thrissur. The revision petitioners are the defendants. The suit was filed by the plaintiff - Indian Bank - for recovery of Rs. 18,37,127/- with future interest on the above amount at 24.25% per annum with quarterly rests. Eventhough the defendants filed a written statement, finally they withdrew all their contentions and agreed for decreeing the suit as prayed for'. The suit was decreed on 22.6.1994. The plaintiff was allowed to recover Rs. 18,37,127/- with interest at 24.25% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. No appeal was filed against the above decree. Thereafter the plaintiff filed I. A. 5692 of 1995 invoking S.152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the decree and judgment to the effect that plaintiff will be entitled to realise from the defendants future interest on the decree amount as compounded at quarterly rests instead of annual rests as granted by the Court. This was objected to by the present petitioners. But, the Court below by the impugned order allowed the petition for amendment. It is against that the present C.R.P. is filed.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contended that under S.34 of the CPC a discretion is conferred on the Court with regard to the grant of interest pendente lite and future interest. The Court has granted only 24.25% simple interest. It cannot be said to be an accidental error or omission.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bank submitted that in the plaint the plaintiff has clearly stated that the contract rate is 24.25% with quarterly rests. Further, in the plaint the Bank has prayed for 24.25% per annum from the date of suit till date of realisation with quarterly rests. The defendants withdrew the contentions in the written statement and agreed for decreeing the suit as prayed for. The Trial Court, as a matter of fact, chose 24.25% as interest, which was taken from the plaint. But, it omitted to give the further qualification that interest has to be at the quarterly rests. Counsel submitted that the intention of the Court was to grant interest as prayed for. But by some accidental error or omission, this was omitted by the Court.